1. 1 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 1 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Diagnostics & Common Optics LUSI WBS 1.5 Yiping Feng – DCO Lead Scientist Eliazar Ortiz – DCO Lead Engineer DCO Engineering Staff June 18, 2009

2. 2 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 2 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Acknowledgment DCO Engineering Staff Tim Montagne Profile/wavefront monitor Intensity monitor Intensity-position monitor Harmonic rejection mirror Marc Campell Attenuator X-ray focusing lens Richard Jackson Slits system Pulse picker

3. 3 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 3 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Outline Distribution Diagnostics Status Profile Monitor Profile-Intensity Monitor Intensity-Position Monitor Common Optics Status Slits Attenuator & Pulse Picker X-Ray Focusing Lens Cost & Schedule Summary

4. 4 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 4 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Components Distribution Components locations Distributed throughout the XPP, CXI, and XCS instruments, including X-ray transport tunnel SXR CXI Endstation Near Experimental Hall Far Experimental Hall X-ray Transport Tunnel XCS Endstation XPP Endstation AMO MEE LCLS X-ray FEL

5. 5 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 5 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Components Distribution Diagnostics/OpticsXPPCXIXCSTotal Location Total Location Total Location Profile Monitor3 1 in Hutch 2 2 in Hutch 3 (combined with Intensity monitor) 3 2 in Hutch 5 1 in Hutch 5 (combined with Intensity monitor) 6 4 in XRT (combined with Intensity monitor) 2 in Hutch 4 (combined with Intensity monitor) 12 Wavefront Monitor - - 1 Hutch 5 - - 1 Intensity Monitor2 Hutch 3 (combined with Profile monitor) 1 Hutch 5 (combined with Profile monitor) 6 4 in XRT (combined with profile monitor) 2 in Hutch 4 (combined with Profile monitor) 9 Intensity-Position Monitor3 1 in Hutch 2 2 in Hutch 3 2 Hutch 5 6 4 in XRT 2 in Hutch 4 11 X-Ray Focusing Lenses1 Hutch 3 2 Hutch 5 1 XRT 4 Slit System3 1 double slit system in Hutch 3 1 single slit system in Hutch 3 1 single slit system in Hutch 2 4 Hutch 5 7 2 double slit systems in XRT 2 single slit systems in XRT 3 single slit systems in Hutch 4 14 Attenuators-Filters1 Hutch 3 1 XRT 1 Hutch 4 3 Pulse Picker1 Hutch 3 1 XRT 1 Hutch 4 3 Harmonic Rejection Mirrors1 Hutch 3 - - 1 Hutch 4 2 Total 15 2959

6. 6 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 6 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 DCO Distribution on XCS Photon Shutter Primary Slits Diagnostics Secondary Slits Diagnostics Split and Delay Focusing Lenses Attenuators Diagnostics Photon Shutter Defining Slits Diffractometer Large Angle Detector Stage Monochromator Transport Tunnel FEH Hutch 4 Harm. Rej. Mirrors Pulse Picker Secondary Slits Diagnostics Attenuators / Pulse Picker Qty 1 Profile Monitor / Intensity Monitor QTY 6 Intensity Position Monitor Qty 6 X-Ray Focusing Lens Qty 1 Harm. Rej. Mirror System * Qty 1 Slits Double Configuration Qty 2 Slits single Configuration Qty 5 * A system has two mirrors, one mirror per chamber

7. 7 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 7 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Profile & Intensity Monitor Status PM and IM collocated in same chamber when applicable FDR completed April 2009 Commonality for all Monitors Chamber 6 DOF Alignment Stands Stages Same design for wavefront monitor w/o intensity monitor Attenuation needed Diagnostics Status YAG:Ce screen Diode Assy. 45º mirror Brazed chamber 6 DOF Stand Motorized zoom lens Optical CCD Camera Diode Electronics (Charge sensitive amplification) Quartz window Hollow shaft for cable routing 100 mm travel linear stage with smart motor LCLS Beam

8. 8 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 8 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Diagnostics Status Profile & Intensity Monitor Next Steps Place orders for vendor items- Started April 09 Place order for fabricated components – June 09 Test First Articles- July 09 Update Models and Drawings based on First Article tests- August 09 Order production chamber assembliesDetail Design PM and PIM–Aug 09

9. 9 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 9 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Diagnostics Status 100 mm travel linear stages with smart motor 6 DOF Stand Brazed chamber LCLS Beam Intensity-Position Monitor FDR completed April 2009 Commonality for all Monitors Chamber 6 DOF Alignment Stands Stages 4-channel Diode Electronics (Charge sensitive amplification) Be target changer 4-Diode Assy. (inclined in y for uniform response) Roller Stages Smart Motor for X- axis motion* Be targets Hollow shaft for cable routing *IPM needs calibration in both x & y directions

10. 10 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 10 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Diagnostics Status Intensity-Position Monitor Next Steps Place orders for vendor items- Started April 09 Place order for fabricated components – June 09 Test First Articles- July 09 Update Models and Drawings based on First Article tests- August 09 Order production chamber assembliesDetail Design PM and PIM–Aug 09

11. 11 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 11 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Common Optics Rigid Stand w/o DOF Slits System UHV compatible Low-z & high-z blades Single/Double configurations Double blades configuration (4 sets of blades) Blade Form Factor Single blades configuration (2 sets of blades) Blades/ blade mounts Optical encoder High-Z Low-Z High-Z Pink beam Mono beam

12. 12 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 12 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Common Optics Status Slits Status Purchase Item Vendor Evaluation in Process Confirmed compatibility with controls Added to APP in January Performance data from vendor March 09 Coupling for double assembly configuration will be done at SLAC. Coupler has been identified One has been ordered and received

13. 13 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 13 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Common Optics Status Slits Next Steps Award Contract June 09 Order Supports – June 09 Detail Assembly Drawings –June 09

14. 14 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 14 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Common Optics Status Attenuator-Pulse Picker Status Combined attenuator and pulse picker Commercial pulse-picker packaged into same chamber Final Design Review Completed Chamber shared with Attenuator Test Program Blade coating PP performance with coated blade Shared Design 6 DOF Alignment Stands Stage Motorized actuators for attenuator filters 6 DOF Stand Optical CCD Camera LCLS Beam View port Hollow shaft for cable routing 50 mm travel linear stage with smart motor 6” Rotating flanges Lens Si filters Pulse-picker AZSOL Shutter

15. 15 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 15 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Common Optics Status Attenuator-Pulse PickerNext Steps Finalize Blade coating test –June 09 Order Supports Design – Feb 09 Place orders for vendor items- June 09 Linear stage Motors Actuators Place Order for fabricated Items- June 09 Chamber Stage support bracket Mirror & Filter holders Shaft Weldment

16. 16 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 16 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 6 DOF Stand LCLS Beam Z-axis translation stage (±200mm) XPP only Chamber similar to monitors Actuator design similar to IPM Lens Holder Accommodates 3 different lens configurations Quick lens stack removal Common Optics Status X-Ray Focusing Lenses Status Commonality with Monitors Chamber 6 DOF Alignment Stands Stages Final Design Review- June 09

17. 17 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 17 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Common Optics Status X-Ray Focusing Lenses Next Steps Order lens holder parts for validation test- May 09 Issue award for lenses- July 09 Order other vendor Items- July 09 Linear Stages Motors Be lenses

18. 18 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 18 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Common Optics Status In-Vacuum Stages Harmonic Rejection Mirrors Status PDR performed on June 15 Design concept in work In vacuum motion Next Steps Detail Design June - Aug Award Long Lead Procurements September 09 Mirrors Stages chamber Plane Si mirrors BEAM DIRECTION

19. 19 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 19 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Cost 64% 36%

20. 20 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 20 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Cost & Schedule Performance – WBS 1.5

21. 21 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 21 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Project Critical Path DCO has one design effort and multiple procurements to support the Instrument requirements. The project is monitoring strings of activities with the least float Items on the critical path are: XFLS Procurement Preps (14 day float, start May 2010) HRM Procurement Preps (19 day float, start Oct 2010) Activities to monitor from falling on the critical path: Check and Approve Dwgs PP (24 day float, start May 09) PP procurement preps XPP (24 day float, start June 09)

22. 22 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 22 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Major Milestones

23. 23 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 23 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Procurement Schedule

24. 24 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 24 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Summary Scope of DCO components for XPP, CXI, and XCS instruments has not changed significantly since CD-02 The design of key diagnostics devices and optical components is mature and based on proven developments at synchrotron sources worldwide by XTOD and LCLS e-beam groups No major risks associated with the design or procurement of the DCO components Bought components (slits) are “off the shelf” items Assembly components (CCD cameras, zoom lens, actuators, connectors) are commercially made with known performance In-house electronics design are based on proven technology and implementations DCO overall cost and schedule performance is kept within margins. Critical Path is defined and monitored Advanced Procurements identified DCO is on track to support XCS schedule!

25. 25 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 25 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Backup

26. 26 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 26 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Overview DCO will provide to all LUSI instruments Common diagnostics for measuring FEL properties Transverse beam profile Incident beam intensity Beam positions and pointing Wavefield measurement at focus Common Optical components for performing FEL manipulations Beam size definition and clean-up Attenuation Pulse pattern selection and/or repetition rate reduction Isolation of fundamental from high order harmonics Focusing Monochromatization* *Engineering of mono is now managed by the XCS team

27. 27 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 27 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Global Physics Requirements Physics requirements remained same as CD-2 and were based on characteristics of LCLS FEL Ultra short pulses ~ 100 fs, and rep. rate of 120 Hz Pulse energy 2 mJ, peak power ~ 20 GW, ave. power ~.24 W Fully coherent in transverse directions ~ expected to be predominantly TEM 00 * Exhibiting intrinsic intensity, temporal, spatial, timing fluctuations on per-pulse basis †, i.e., Higher order Laguerre-Gaussian modes possible but negligible †FEL amplification process based on SASE from noise LCLS Expected Fluctuations Pulse intensity fluctuations ~ 30 % (in contrast to synchrotron where fluctuation is Poisson limited) Position & pointing jitter (x, y, ,  ) ~ 10 % of beam diameter ~ 10 % of beam divergence Source point jitter (z) ~ 5 m (leads to variations in apparent source size, or focal point location if focused)

28. 28 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 28 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Challenges Addressed Scientific/technical challenges that were addressed Sustaining the instantaneous LCLS X-ray FEL peak power Exercising careful material selection Filters, scattering target, slits materials, focusing lens, beam stop etc. Based on thermal calculations including melting threshold and onset of thermal fatigue & limited experimental data from FLASH But no active cooling necessary Providing coherent beam manipulation Minimizing wavefront distortion/coherence degradation Filters, scattering target, slits, focusing lens Reducing surface roughness and bulk non-uniformities Minimizing diffraction effects i.e., utilizing cylindrical blades for slits

29. 29 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 29 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Challenges Addressed Scientific/technical challenges that were addressed Detecting ultra-fast signals Extracting electrical signals in ~ ns to minimize dark current contribution i.e., charge-sensitive detection using diodes Making per-pulse measurement if required Each pulse is different Averaging over pulses may NOT be an option, requiring sufficiently high S/N ratio for each pulse i.e., high-precision intensity measurements at < 0.1% based on single pulses, requiring larger raw signal than synchrotron cases

30. 30 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 30 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Pop-in Profile Monitor (WBS 1.5.2.1) Requirements Destructive; Retractable Variable FOV and resolution At 50  m resolution, 12x12 mm 2 FOV At 4  m resolution, 1x1 mm 2 FOV Capable of per-pulse op. @ 120 Hz if required Attenuation used if necessary YAG:Ce screen 45º mirror Purposes Aid in alignment of X-ray optics FEL is serial operation, automation enables maximum productivity Characterization of X-ray beam spatial profile FEL spatial mode structure Effects of optics on fully coherent FEL beam Characterization of X-ray beam transverse spatial jitter FEL beam exhibits intrinsic spatial fluctuations Implementation X-ray scintillation 50-75  m thin YAG:Ce single crystal scintillator Optical imaging Capable of  diffraction limited resolution if required Normal incidence geometry w/ 45º mirror Motorized zoom lens 120 Hz optical CCD camera

31. 31 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 31 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Pop-in Intensity Monitor (WBS 1.5.2.2) Requirements Destructive; Retractable Relative accuracy < 1% Working dynamic range 100 Large sensor area 20x20 mm 2 Per-pulse op. @ 120 Hz Attenuation used if necessary Si diode Purposes Aid in alignment of X-ray optics FEL is serial operation, automation enables maximum productivity Simple point detector for physics measurements In cases where 2D X-ray detector is not suitable Implementation Direct X-ray detection using Si diodes Advantageous in cases of working w/ spontaneous or mono beams Capable of high quantum efficiency (> 90% at 8.3 keV) 100 – 500  m depletion thickness Using charge sensitive amplification Applicable to pulsed FEL Commercially available Large working area (catch-all) easily available simplifying alignment procedure

32. 32 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 32 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Be thin foil Array Si diodes Intensity-Position Monitor (WBS 1.5.2.3) Requirements In-situ, retractable if necessary Highly transmissive (> 95%) Relative accuracy < 0.1% Working dynamic range 1000; Position accuracy in xy < 10  m; Per-pulse op. at 120 Hz; Purposes Allow precise measurement of the intensity for normalization Critical to experiments where signal from underlying physics is very small Characterization of FEL fluctuations Positional jitter ~ 10% of beam size Pointing jitter ~ 10% of beam divergence Slitting beam down creates diffraction which may cause undesirable effects Implementation Based on back scattering from thin-foil Detecting both Compton scattering & Thomson scattering Using Low-z (beryllium) for low attenuation especially at low X-ray energies Using Si diode detectors Array sensors for position measurement Pointing measurement using 2 or more monitors

33. 33 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 33 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Wavefront Monitor (WBS 1.5.2.1) [in lieu of wavefront sensor] Purposes Wavefront characterization of focused X-ray beam at focal point Wavefront measurement at focal point is not feasible by conventional methods due to damages Providing supplemental scattering data in low Q w/ high resolution Resolution obtained using X-ray direct detection is limited by detector technology, i.e., pixel sizes and per-pixel dynamic range Implementation X-ray scintillation 50-75  m thin YAG:Ce single crystal scintillator Optical imaging Capable of  diffraction limited resolution if required Using computational algorithm for reconstruction of wavefield at focus Iterative, post processing only if no large computer farm Requirements In-situ; Retractable Variable FOV and resolution At 50  m resolution,12x12 mm 2 FOV At 4  m resolution, 1x1 mm 2 FOV Per-pulse op. @ 120 Hz Attenuation used if necessary YAG:Ce screen 45º mirror

34. 34 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 34 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 X-ray Focusing Lenses (WBS 1.5.3.2) Purposes Increase the X-ray fluence at the sample Produce small spot size in cases where slits do not work due to diffraction, i.e., sample too far from slits Implementation Based on refractive lenses concept* Concave shape due to X-ray refractive index 1-  +i  Using Beryllium to minimize attenuation In-line focus Simpler than KB systems no diff. orders as in Fresnel lens Chromatic Con: re-positioning of focal point Pro: Providing harmonic isolation if aperture used Some attenuation at very low X-ray energies ~ 2 keV Requirements Produce variable spot size For XPP instrument 2-10  m in focus 40-60  m out-of-focus Minimize wavefront distortion and coherence degradation Withstand FEL full flux *B. Lengeler, et al, J. Synchrotron Rad. (1999). 6, 1153-1167 Be Lens stack Be lenses

35. 35 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 35 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Requirements Repeatability in x&y < 2  m 0 – 10 mm gap setting 10 -9 in transmission from 2-8.3keV 10 -8 in transmission at 25 keV Minimize diffraction/wavefront distortion Withstand FEL full flux Slits System (WBS 1.5.3.3) Purposes define beam transverse sizes Pink and mono beam Clean up scatterings (halo) around beam perimeter Implementation Based on cylindrical blades concept* Minimize scattering from edges and external total reflections Offset in Z to allow fully closing Using single or double configurations for pink or mono beam applications Single configuration Blade material: Si 3 N 4 to stop low energies Or blade material: Ta/W alloy to stop low fluence low or high energies Double configuration 1 st blades: Si 3 N 4, 2 nd blades: Ta/W alloy to stop low and high energies *D. Le Bolloc’h, et al, J. Synchrotron Rad. (2002). 9, 258-265 High-Z Low-Z High-Z Pink beam Mono beam D=3 mm

36. 36 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 36 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Attenuator/Filters (WBS 1.5.3.4) Purposes Reduce incident X-ray flux Sample damage Detector saturation Diagnostic saturation Alignment of optics and diagnostics Implementation Using Si wafers of various thicknesses Highly polished to minimize wavefront distortion & coherence degradation For a given attenuation, use one wafer whenever possible Commercially available (< 1 nm rms roughness) For energies < 6 keV in NEH-3 and in pink beam Employing a pre-attenuator, i.e., LCLS XTOD gas/solid attenuators Requirements 10 8 attenuation at 8.3 keV 10 4 attenuation at 24.9 keV 3 steps per decade for > 6 keV Minimize wavefront distortion and coherence degradation Withstand unfocused flux

37. 37 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 37 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 Pulse Picker (WBS 1.5.3.5) *http://www.azsol.ch/ Purposes Select a single pulse or any sequence of pulses Reduce LCLS repetition rate Important if longer sample recover time is needed Damage experiments - sample needs to be translated Implementation Based on a commercial mechanical teeter-totter* Steel blade fully stops beam Capable of ms transient time Simple to operate Use TTL pulses Requires 100  m Si 3 N 4 to protect the steel blade Requirements < 3 ms switching time < 8 ms in close/open cycle time Only for < 10 Hz operation Withstand full LCLS flux

38. 38 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 38 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 A B C Harmonic Rejection Mirrors (WBS 1.5.3.6) Purposes Provide isolation of FEL fundamental from high harmonics LUSI detectors not designed to be energy resolved Implementation Low pass filter using X-ray mirrors at grazing incidence Using highly polished Si single crystal substrates 3.5 mrad incidence angle 300 mm long No pre-figure, no bender Figure-error specs defined to ensure FEL natural divergence not effected R ~ 150 km Roughness specs to minimize wavefront distortion and coherence degradation rms ~ 0.1 nm Requirements Energy range: 6-8.265 keV 10 4 contrast ratio between fundamental and the 3 rd harmonic 80% overall throughput for fundamental Minimize wavefront distortion Withstand full FEL flux

39. 39 Eliazar Ortiz ortize@slac.stanford.edu 39 XCS Final Instrument Design Review – DCO June 18, 2009 *Engineering of mono is now managed by the XCS team DCO Scope Work Breakdown Structure Scope/CD-2 Includes: Physics support & engineering integration (WBS. 1.5.1) Diagnostics (WBS 1.5.2) Pop-in Profile/Wavefront Monitor (WBS 1.5.2.1) Pop-in Intensity Monitor (WBS 1.5.2.2) Intensity-Position Monitor (WBS 1.5.2.3) Common Optics (WBS 1.5.3) Offset Monochromator (WBS 1.5.3.1)* X-ray Focusing Lenses (WBS 1.5.3.2) Slits System (WBS 1.5.3.3) Attenuators (WBS 1.5.3.4) Pulse Picker (WBS 1.5.3.5) Harmonic Rejection Mirrors (WBS 1.5.3.6)